Skip to main content

The Shining Path to a Nuclear Workers' Paradise

Stuart Jordan over at Workers' Liberty proposes an interesting reason to oppose nuclear energy if oppose it we must:

Whether or not we believe there is a role for nuclear in a future society, we should be absolutely clear that the bourgeoisie views nuclear technology in a way fundamentally opposed to the how Marxists should see it. Their concern is for profit, ours is for human need, and the nuclear power stations that they are proposing to build will reflect this difference.

I think he means the plant will reflect the drive for profit, not the difference between that and human need. Marxists know how to create loaded terminology, but it turns their prose into spaghetti-like strands of thought that sound densely intelligent but are often just plain dense.

But any particular technology developed under capitalism will invariably bear the mark of this ecological[ly?] destructive and alienating system. In some cases the technology can be modified in ways that will restore the metabolic relationship. But in the case of nuclear this seems unlikely.

I wonder how he would "modify" the technology to give it a pass or, shall we say, restore the metabolic relationship. Enquiring minds want to know.

But let's at least give Stuart points for thinking big.

A socialist reconstruction of society will involve knocking down a lot of walls and welding together a lot of cars to make more communal, ecologically sound use of our technology.

For us bourgeois types, that would be busses and those lovely communal apartments that made Soviet romantic comedies so sparkling.

There are a fair number of articles on nuclear energy over at Workers Liberty, but you may be sure that if these scraps cause your brain to liquefy, then the site should definitely be given a steer clear. We'll just call it a little fun on a Friday afternoon.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Don't forget, there are other socialists who are actually pro-nuclear.
Anonymous said…
As every Marxist knows, to resolve the dispute one just needs to line up few intelligentchicks up against a wall and shoot.
Anonymous said…
It's too bad more socialists aren't like David Walters. Sadly, however, the embrace of a philosophical system that has murdered untold millions in the USSR and the People's Republic of China, and continues to do so today in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, does tend to liquify the brains of its most ardent adherents, hence the anti-nuclear power stance of most of these brain-washed disciples.

Pope John Paul II, President Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher indeed defeated the old USSR, but we remain in a three way struggle between Christendom, atheistic humanism (including its chief offspring, Marxism), and Islamic Fascism. We know Who wins, and He is neither Karl Marx, nor Mohammed. In the meantime, nations that want to prosper materially will use nuclear power and nations that are suicidal will abandon its use. If the atheist humanists have their way, the US will be in the latter category.

But that won't change Who wins in the end - thankfully.
Anonymous said…
Hardcore Marxists like to believe in straw mans. Less rabid people recognise the benefit to workers, hence Unite's lobbying of the Scottish government to alter their anti-nucelar position.

And Unite can be pretty red eyed at times too.
Anonymous said…
In response to anonymous #3:

Support for nuclear power does not imply a belief in supreme beings, or vice versa. I have been a supporter of nuclear power for over 20 years, and my support has always been based on logical reasoning about resource usage, air pollution, land-sparing, and risk.
Mark Flanagan said…
I'd be cautious about trying to fix a religious or spiritual agenda onto an energy source. All the categories of peoples our anon friend lists - and hey, where are the Hindi - have found something to appeal to them in nuclear energy and all of them enjoy having electricity when they can. Dividing the world into clean little slices easily leads to dirty little generalities that don't stand up to scrutiny.
Anonymous said…
This is Anon #3. Support of or opposition to nuke power is irrelevant with respect to a belief in a Supreme Being. But a belief in a Supreme Being is not irrelevant to the subject of Marxism. The atheism of Marxism in the 20th century has murdered untold millions of people, and continues to do so today in China and North Korea and Cuba and a few other places. However, perhaps Islamic fascism in the 21st century will exceed the horrific atrocities of atheist humanism

Popular posts from this blog

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

A Design Team Pictures the Future of Nuclear Energy

For more than 100 years, the shape and location of human settlements has been defined in large part by energy and water. Cities grew up near natural resources like hydropower, and near water for agricultural, industrial and household use.

So what would the world look like with a new generation of small nuclear reactors that could provide abundant, clean energy for electricity, water pumping and desalination and industrial processes?

Hard to say with precision, but Third Way, the non-partisan think tank, asked the design team at the Washington, D.C. office of Gensler & Associates, an architecture and interior design firm that specializes in sustainable projects like a complex that houses the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys. The talented designers saw a blooming desert and a cozy arctic village, an old urban mill re-purposed as an energy producer, a data center that integrates solar panels on its sprawling flat roofs, a naval base and a humming transit hub.

In the converted mill, high temperat…

Seeing the Light on Nuclear Energy

If you think that there is plenty of electricity, that the air is clean enough and that nuclear power is a just one among many options for meeting human needs, then you are probably over-focused on the United States or Western Europe. Even then, you’d be wrong.

That’s the idea at the heart of a new book, “Seeing the Light: The Case for Nuclear Power in the 21st Century,” by Scott L. Montgomery, a geoscientist and energy expert, and Thomas Graham Jr., a retired ambassador and arms control expert.


Billions of people live in energy poverty, they write, and even those who don’t, those who live in places where there is always an electric outlet or a light switch handy, we need to unmake the last 200 years of energy history, and move to non-carbon sources. Energy is integral to our lives but the authors cite a World Health Organization estimate that more than 6.5 million people die each year from air pollution.  In addition, they say, the global climate is heading for ruinous instability. E…